Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 18 April 2013 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03ACB21F8F7B for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.981
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.981 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.732, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ydzs2ix4Bvlo for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872BA21F8F68 for <lwip@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3IFAgaP022580; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p548938F1.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.56.241]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39A13312C; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <64E6305D-109B-40E8-9CC6-F68CC55503E7@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:10:41 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7C4D9B56-CAB6-4ACA-91FE-77C7C28A9FE8@tzi.org>
References: <014001ce3369$1794bf50$46be3df0$@chinamobile.com> <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618C11457@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com> <64E6305D-109B-40E8-9CC6-F68CC55503E7@tzi.org>
To: "Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight IP stack <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lwip>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:10:46 -0000

On Apr 18, 2013, at 10:54, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> Hope I can send around an update proposal today...

Here it is:

2.3.1.  LLN ("low-power lossy network")

   A related term that has been used recently is "low-power lossy
   network" (LLN).  In its terminology document, the ROLL working group
   is saying [I-D.ietf-roll-terminology]:

      LLN: Low power and Lossy networks (LLNs) are typically composed of
      many embedded devices with limited power, memory, and processing
      resources interconnected by a variety of links, such as IEEE
      802.15.4 or Low Power WiFi.  There is a wide scope of application
      areas for LLNs, including industrial monitoring, building
      automation (HVAC, lighting, access control, fire), connected home,
      healthcare, environmental monitoring, urban sensor networks,
      energy management, assets tracking and refrigeration.. [sic]

   In common usage, LLN often stands for "the network characteristics
   that RPL has been designed for".  Beyond what is said in the ROLL
   terminology document, LLNs do appear to have significant loss at the
   physical layer, with significant variability of the delivery rate,
   and some short-term unreliability, coupled with some medium term
   stability that makes it worthwhile to construct medium-term stable
   directed acyclic graphs for routing and do measurements on the edges
   such as ETX [RFC6551].  Actual "low power" does not seem to be
   required for an LLN [I-D.hui-vasseur-roll-rpl-deployment], and the
   positions on scaling of LLNs appear to vary widely
   [I-D.clausen-lln-rpl-experiences].

   The ROLL terminology document states that LLNs typically are composed
   of constrained nodes; this is also supported by the design of
   operation modes such as RPL's "non-storing mode".  So, in the
   terminology of the present document, an LLN seems to be a constrained
   node network with certain network characteristics, which include
   constraints on the network as well.

I hope that is a bit more to the point, and helps correlate the ROLL terminology to the one used in this document.

I'll look at your other points now.

Grüße, Carsten